Philosophy of Engineering

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Engineering and Theology

So there I was reading an interesting paper titled "Theology and the outcomes-based curriculum: the value of not knowing" in the 2006 spring edition of the "Discourse" journal when I became struck by the familiarity of the narrative.

The question struck me; could it be that there are parallels between the teaching of theology and the teaching of engineering? It seemed that there were.

The paper (by Darlene Bird) outlined how theological education in the UK has been impacted by the modern trend in education to have outcomes that are "useful" for the British economy and that learning for learning's sake was now regarded as "a bit dodgy". The paper sought to counter this view and proposed an argument in support of an education not restricted by such narrow, materialist and utilitarian outcomes. Focussing on the teaching of theology in a higher education setting the author argued that students should be exposed to the uncertainties and unknowns of this world and that the system should provide the necessary space for open enquiry and discovery. Through such exposure students will be free to develop more independently.

I felt somewhat swayed by the idea that engineering education may be set free from the shackles of overly prescribed curricula.

The argument went on to reflect on how this utilitarian shift has been accompanied by the redefining of knowledge as a commodity which intern has led to the dominance of an "operationalist" ideology in higher education. The jargon associated with this paradigm focuses on skills, competencies and outcomes and seems devoid of the notions of wisdom, reflection and self-awareness. Education was perceived as having more to do with "training" than with "educating" with little room for transformativity; a process whereby not just the student is changed but the acquired knowledge is transformed in the mind of the student.

This point again struck a chord with me as I remembered the discussions I have had with others on an Engineering and Philosophy E-Forum relating to the importance of truth, honesty, knowledge and wisdom in the engineering profession.

It seems that the theological fraternity has been resisting this trend, which the paper described as reductionist and impoverished and favouring product over process. Education, it was argued, should be transformative, have a profound impact on a person's life, inducing changes in perspectives and attitudes and foster a lifelong quest for wisdom, respect for one's own integrity and that of others, self-examination in terms of the beliefs and values adopted for one's own life and the challenging of prejudices.


Weighty stuff I thought, but not so different from discussions on the E-Forum relating to engineering ethics, sustainability and the duty engineers have to society


The paper concluded by suggesting that a higher education should challenge beliefs and expose prejudices, it should open up the space for students to ask questions - questions that have no answer - and it should provide the opportunity for students to reflect on how they would respond to not having an answer, to not knowing - or acknowledging that they do not know - which is the beginning of wisdom. True knowledge, the author wrote, does not lie in the recitation of facts or in the acquisition of skills: true knowledge has to do with understanding - and facing up to - our human condition.

I felt convinced, challenged and enthused - what direction should the engineering profession be driving towards? A skills base or a knowledge base? Surely one cannot exist without the other? Should the education system focus on knowledge and employers provide the skills training? Some philosophical and some practical questions - perfect Philosophy of Engineering material.

4 Comments:

At 12:56 PM, Blogger Andrew Fox said...

Ok no interesting replies to my posting, but I don’t want to give up on this topic just yet.

On another forum, some comments suggested it would not be a good idea prescribing ever more “stuff” for inclusion in engineering curricula. I agree, and worry that this tendency to over prescribe leaves little time for deep learning and results in a spoon-feeding approach; and I ask myself is that good for the profession? I have always seen my engineering career as a journey, a never ending path of learning along which I am driven by a love for the subject. As such the few years spent as university have long-since become only a small part of what makes me an engineer.

This may be likened to some form of religious devotion, something spiritual, something beyond the materialist and utilitarian application of scientific principles to problems. Rather it may be characterised by a desire to understand the nature of engineering knowledge and how that knowledge can be used for the benefit of mankind the universe and everything. To some extent, it seems this zeal is missing from new entrants to the engineering profession; it seems the profession may be losing touch with its soul.

And what can theology teach us? Well theology is very much about nurturing the soul and it serves as a reminder of what values we should focus on if we are to put the soul back into engineering. I would hazard a guess that a foundation for life-long learning and dedication is more about soul than about science.

To some extent this is exactly the sort of question that needs to be address by a forum exploring the philosophy of engineering and so I appeal to you to consider this topic, for I wonder – How important is the soul to the profession? If it is, how do we nourish it? And if we do, when do we start?

 
At 9:42 AM, Anonymous therese said...

Hi - I'm not sure whether you're still into this (considering your thread is 5 years old!) I'm just browsing the net because I want to work - not on theology AND engineering - but the theology OF engineering; more concrete: the theology of geo-engineering. It seems to me that the praxis of engineering implies several questions. First, an ethic of vocation that channels what we define 'ideal'(the kingdom of God?) into an action, i.e. building/making/engineering. How does this ethic of action correspond to the ideal? Does the things we make correspond to this? And, second, a theology of engineering implies a reality one responds to. ("How necessitarian is it" is one important question as to the freedom we allow ourselves). The 'reality' also implies ends of action, e.g. the world as a perfectly running machine (viz. the Air Force paper "Owning the weather in 2025"!). The point is that the answers to these questions IMPLY a particular theology (e.g. God is Nature, as one proponent of geo-engineering, Jay Michaelson, claims). Theology would then not be "added on" to any given subject, but we would seriously wonder whether our subjects and their praxis actually disclose what our loves and beliefs are.

 
At 2:32 AM, Blogger Andrew Fox said...

Thank you for your message. Yes I do still monitor my very old blog, but for some reason have not up-dated it for several years as you have noted.

Interestingly yours is the first serious comment I have received.

Your questions interest me. I have been thinking that religion could be viewed as the mother two related disciplines, engineering and architecture. Engineering and architecture are like twin, but engineering is the pagan twin to architecture, which has retained a closer adherence to a philosophy of its parent, religion. By describing engineering as pagan is not imply that it is without an ethic, or that it actions are not in pursuit of an “ideal”, but that its ethics and ideals have comet to rest on a different foundation. Theology pursues an ideal that is “other-wordly”, founded in the cognitive domain, and the praxis of religious philosophy (theology) ascribes meaning to objects and artefacts in world we inhabit. The other-worldliness of theology is apparent in Architectural philosophy, which ascribes meaning to the objects and artefacts that are produced by engineers. However, engineering seems less concerned with other-worldly matters and addresses its attentions instead to matters of concern in “this world”. The ideal that engineering seeks does not lead to “ultimate truths” (Understanding of God?), rather it is focussed on needs of the society and environment in which it is practiced, which gives it a conditional, pragmatic and immediate focus (necessitarian?). Analysing the praxis of engineering may disclose a love, but it may be a love of this world and a love of solving problems encountered in this world, and it may reveal beliefs, but it is likely that these may be found to be based around a philosophy which contends that a life spent solving problems in this world can be as enriching as another that pursues more a “Godly” purpose. Is this heresy?

Andrew Fox

 
At 3:53 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Hi, I just stumbled your blog! it's in the first page of google search for' engineering philosophy'
I have read a couple of your posts and I seem to have similar thoughts, and happy to read your blog.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home